« 이전계속 »
sentence of the general court-martial was voided, the evidence established to the satisfaction of the court martial, as constituted, that the man was guilty as charged, and under such circumstances he should certainly not be considered as having been restored to an honorable status nor honorably discharged from the military service.
The records show specifically that 27 general prisoners formerly belonging to volunteer organizations, and including James Flemming, were released from the further operation of their sentences because of the decision of the United States Supreme Court in the case of McClaughry v. Deming, previously mentioned, and for reasons identical with those which obtained in the case of Flemming. The offenses of which these men had been found guilty ranged from disobedience, drunkenness on duty, assault and larceny, to desertion in time of insurrection, manslaughter, rape, and murder, and involved from 2 years in confinement to life imprisonment, and hanging. The War Department now holds that all were in a status other than honorable when their organizations were mustered out of the Federal service, and consequently, each is now held to have been discharged without honor on the date of the muster out of his organization.
The enactment of H. R. 10226 into law would, in effect, constitute a legislative reversal of the considered action of the authorities charged with the execution of the laws enacted for the Government and control of the military forces, and single out one man of the number mentioned in the preceding paragraph for preferential treatment. It would place a man with an unsavory military record on a par with those who, during a period of insurrection, rendered services that were honest and faithful and whose discharges were honorable. Furthermore, the action taken in this case would be a precedent for similar action in the cases of 26 other former soldiers released from confinement as general prisoners under the same order and for the same reason as the man named in this bill, a number of whom were found guilty of high crimes and originally sentenced to be hung. So far as this Department is able to ascertain there is no merit in the claim of this former soldier.
The War Department does not believe that an individual should be granted benefits to which he is not entitled under the general laws unless it is clearly shown that the facts and circumstances surrounding the individual case are exceptional and justify special consideration. It is strongly recommended that the bill H. R. 10226 be not favorably considered. Sincerely yours.
HENRY L. Stimson, Secretary of War.
CASE OF JAMES FLEMMING, PRIVATE, COMPANY B, FORTY-EIGHTH UNITED
STATES VOLUNTEER INFANTRY, PHILIPPINE INSURRECTION The Honorable The SECRETARY OF WAR.
It is shown by the official records that James Flemming, surname also shown as Fleming, enlisted September 25, 1899, at Knoxville, Tenn., as a private Company B, Forty-eighth United States Volunteer Infantry, to serve for the period ending June 30, 1901. He was tried by general court martial convened at San Fernando, Luzon, P. I.; was found guilty of “drunkenness on duty, in violation of the thirty-eighth article of war; of using threatening language to a noncommissioned officer and of threatening to shoot a noncommissioned officer, to the prejudice of good order and military discipline, and was sentenced “to be dishonorably discharged the service of the United States, forfeiting all pay and allowances due him, and to be confined at hard labor, at such place as the reviewing authority may direct, for the period of 5 years.'
The proceedings, findings, and sentence were approved by competent authority and duly executed, and the soldier was accordingly dishonorably discharged February 9, 1901, as published in paragraph 16, Special Orders, No. 38, Headquarters Department of Northern Luzon, Manila, 8. I Bilibid military prison, Manila, P. ., was designated as the place of confinement. The prisoner was transferred to Alcatraz Island prison in July 1901. His application for clemency was approved, and on April 19, 1902, the Assistant Secretary of War directed his release when he had served 18 months of the term of confinement imposed by the court martial, provided his conduct continued to be good. He is shown to have been released from the further operation of his sentence of imprisonment on orders from Headquarters of the Army, Adjutant General's Office, dated May 28, 1902.
However, it was discovered that two members of the general court martial which tried the soldier were Regular Army officers, and under the seventy-seventh article of war and the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States in the
case of McClaughry v. Deming, (816 U. S. Reports, p. 49), and in the case of Brown v. the United States (206 U. S. Reports, p. 240), the court martial was without effect. Fleming was therefore not separated from the service in pursuance of the general court martial, but was still a member of Company B, Forty-eighth United States Volunteer Infantry, until he was either actually or constructively discharged. Not having been discharged prior to the muster out of the company on June 30, 1901, it is held by the Department that he was discharged from the service on June 30, 1901, the date of the muster out of the company, and that his discharge was without honor, he being at the time under charges alleging drunkenness on duty, in violation of the Thirty-eighth article of war, the use of threatening language to a noncommissioned officer, and of threatening to shoot a noncommissioned officer, to the prejudice of good order and discipline.
The medical records show that he was treated in quarters November 16, 1899, cause undetermined; that he was transferred to the General Hospital, Presidio of San Francisco, Calif., November 18, 1899, and was treated from that date to January 6, 1900, for varioloid, in line of duty; also that he was treated in hospital December 8 to 16, 1900, for fever, malarial, intermittent, tertian type, in line of duty. No additional medical record has been found.
He served in the Philippine Islands, but had no combat service
E. S. ADAMS,
The Adjutant General. WAR DEPARTMENT, The Adjutant General's Office,
August 19, 1940.
MAY 22, 1944.— Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed
Mr. SLAUGHTER, from the Committee on Rules, submitted the
(To accompany H. Res. 559)
The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration House Resolution 559, report the same to the House with the recommenda tion that the resolution do pass.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
REPORT No. 1501
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATION BILL, FISCAL
May 23, 1944.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the state
of the Union and ordered to be printed
Mr. COFFEE, from the Committee on Appropriations, submitted the
(To accompany H. R. 4861)
APPROPRIATIONS AND ESTIMATES
The Budget estimates for the purposes contained in this bill will be found in detail beginning on page 731 of the Budget for 1945, and in House Document 555, the latter being a revision of the initial recommendations for a number of departments, but principally for Civilian Defense, Health, and Public Works
The amount of the Budget estimates, the amount recommended in the accompanying bill, and a comparison between the bill and the 1944 appropriations are as follows: Total Budget estimates.
$67, 481, 124 Amount recommended by the committee.
68, 585, 607 Increase over Budget estimates
1, 104, 483 Amount by which bill is over 1944 appropriations.
10, 458, 263
FINANCIAL CONDITION OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
At the time of the hearings on the District of Columbia appropriation bill for the fiscal year 1944, approximately 1 year ago, the committee was informed that there would be an estimated excess of receipts over disbursements in the general fund for the fiscal vear